You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Dear forum members,
Eupedia moved to a new server last week. If the forum tells you that the page has unsafe scripts, or if anything doesn't work properly on the forum, just clear your browser cache and cookies and everything should go back to normal.

Do we need WW III?

"...starting with the fall in stock prices...it quickly spread to almost every country in the world. ...devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%. Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most....primarily a failure on the part of free markets or a failure of government efforts to regulate interest rates, curtail widespread bank failures, and control the money supply."

Sound familiar, its not about the current economic crisis but a wiki page describing the Depression of the 1930s. source

So how did the the West escape from a decade of Depression?
"The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression.."

How about we incease government spending? Scare people so much about the threat of the boogie man they will want us to spend their tax money bombing some Arab country to pieces.

I don't know about ww3, or a war to that scale, but America and NATO is not going to let Iran get nuclear weapons. They made that mistake with pakistan, they will not do it for Iran, especially because Iran can sneak it to Hezbolla.

Oh come on edao, give me a good news, at least once. You are starting to sound like an echo of most TV stations.
By 40s economies in Europe were doing much better than in 30s, so the recession had not much to do with WWII. Even Soviets were doing way better than in 30s. WWII was started by nothing more than megalomaniac ambitions of two dictators, Hitler and Stalin.

"The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression.."

Are you sure you meant Europe? Just compare GDP of European countries before the war and after. You'll see how economies "improved". Yes, the period of great depression ended with advent of WWII, because another historic period started, but unfortunately it was even worse than depression.
Even US, though grew economically and unemployment shrunk, wasn't immune entirely from the destruction. Half of it's GDP was spent on war effort like producing tanks and bombs. Tell me how this growth enriched ordinary lives of Americans? There were no new cars produced in US from 1942 to 1946. Oh, the good times after the depression. ;) Every heard of rationed food?
Economic boom in Europe and US started after the war, in time of peace.

I'm not suggesting kick starting economies through war is in the interest of the working people. The ruling classes would certainly benefit, Dick Cheney had his finger in US military expenditure as I am sure did many others. What's the point of getting into power if it's not making you some cash, to make the world a better place .

Just read several articles about Iran today. I just don't understand how the US bothered with Saddam and Afghanistan, and let Aman....ab (can't spell it right...) rant about the end of Israel for so long. If Mamoud gets his nuke, we're in the sh!t, time to let him know he has to respect his neighbours too... WWIII? Not very likely, look around you, if the youngsters I see on the street must go to war, we lose it for sure...

America recently gave Greece 400 free refurbished Abram M1A1 tanks, Greece only needs to cover the cost of transport and reburbished parts which is around 8-10 Million dollars. These will be deployed in Thrace and older tanks will be sent to Greek islands in specific places.

I think America is trying to give Turkey a clear sign that it won't tolerate turkish aggression in the eastern med or towards its ally Israel, using Greece as a method.

In case anyone hasn't been keeping up with news, a large deposite of Hydrocarbons reserves have been found in the eastern medeterranean. Turkey who doesn't recognise the sovereignty of Cyprus or of Greek islands claims alot of eastern Med waters.

Above: international EEZ boundaries

Above: Turkish perspective on the EEZ

Turkey claims there shouldn't been drilling untill unification of Cyprus. Cyrpus says that they are not connected and it has its rights to drill in its own EEZ.

I'm not suggesting kick starting economies through war is in the interest of the working people. The ruling classes would certainly benefit, Dick Cheney had his finger in US military expenditure as I am sure did many others. What's the point of getting into power if it's not making you some cash, to make the world a better place .
QUOTE]
Are you implying that only poor people can have morals?
How do you explain that in history of USA not even one president proclaimed himself a dictator, just to take it all? How do you explain the rich leading the independence war from GB, and upon winning they gave the power to the people. They've easily could have kept it all.

I'm not suggesting kick starting economies through war is in the interest of the working people. The ruling classes would certainly benefit, Dick Cheney had his finger in US military expenditure as I am sure did many others.

Did Bush benefit from Iraqi war? Or was it his demise?
The "ruling class" can find easier way to make money than going into uncertainty of war. Besides, there is more money to share, profit, if the money stays in the country. The ones that would benefit from the war are in minority, even in states, so it doesn't make sense that they would force they way through.

Greece reeks of civil war, Turkey is bound to become a local superpower when the "Arab Spring" (please allow me to chuckle at the expression...) will be over, and might take advantage of the Greek government weakness to put pressure on Cyprus. If they start colonizing their share of the island, who could blame them, as they are only doing as the Israeli do? Thank God Greece is a NATO member, cause some serious trouble might rise from the chaos in the coming weeks.

Did Bush benefit from Iraqi war? Or was it his demise?
The "ruling class" can find easier way to make money than going into uncertainty of war. Besides, there is more money to share, profit, if the money stays in the country. The ones that would benefit from the war are in minority, even in states, so it doesn't make sense that they would force they way through.

Mr Dick Cheney:

"Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush (senior), holding the position for the majority of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions."source

For Dick Cheney and G Bush senior the Gulf War was a humiliation for the United States, Saddam had taken on the mightiest military in human history and he was still standing.
After 911 they dropped bomb in Afghanistan going after goat farmers. Then Daddy bush, Bush Junior and good old Cheney though this gives us an opportunity to create a culture of fear and use it to settle scores with Saddam while making our selves an awful lot of money. No convinced....

Halliburton:

"Halliburton is the world's second largest oilfield services corporation with operations in more than 70 countries.

Out of office during the Clinton presidency, Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000."

So prior to Bush Junior running for president daddies old mate is the head of one of the world largest oil services corporation?!?

I wonder what else Halliburton do.....?

"Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones.Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.

In 1995, Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank, as chairman and CEO. Cruikshank had served since 1989.

In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya.

In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR).

In April 2002, KBR was awarded a $7 million contract to construct steel holding cells at Camp X-Ray.

From 1995 to 2002, Halliburton Brown & Root Services Corp was awarded at least $2.5 billion but has spent considerably less to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.

In November 2002, KBR was tasked to plan oil well firefighting in Iraq, and in February 2003 was issued a contract to conduct the work. Critics contend that it was a no-bid contract, awarded due to Dick Cheney's position as vice president.

On January 24, 2006, Halliburton's subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) announced that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build "temporary detention and processing facilities" or internment camps.

It was anticipated that Halliburton’s $2.5 billion "Restore Iraqi Oil" (RIO) contractwould pay for itself as well as for reconstruction of the entire country.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid"

Did Bush benefit from Iraqi war? Or was it his demise?
The "ruling class" can find easier way to make money than going into uncertainty of war. Besides, there is more money to share, profit, if the money stays in the country. The ones that would benefit from the war are in minority, even in states, so it doesn't make sense that they would force they way through.

By what I know Bush family are Texans,

Father was more consious and did enter that scale,

but what then,

the Iraq case cost a lot of money,
I do not know if it is worthy or not, I don't care,

But I do care that people pay taxes to send army to iraq,
people lost lives in order of fight against terror,

but some Gulf and Texan corporations earn Huge quantities,
why don't they pay the cost of oil price?
so a citizen pay taxes, a corporation earns Huge amounts, and some Banks become stronger,
so fun party was a fiesta were they eat and drunk the poor man's lamp, and the pure farmer's wine,
yet I wonder how much some corporation earn about that war? and how much was given back to the people, to relieve them?

Indignados do not want to Bring communism,

personally I do not want to be a sultan in the place of sultan,
i do not want peter in the shoes of Peter,

But I also do not want to be the jackass

when Liehman Bank boom,
US pay the salaries of all chief manager and advisors, but do not pay the salaries of simple workers,
I believe every body is as smart to realize the unfair of that situation,
why was done that way? to keep some mouths closed firm?

modern world is not Free anymore,
this is not Capitalism, or Free will and private moves,
this is corruption and anarcho-capitalism,
this is jungle were the Lion and Hyenas make an unholly alliance-trust,

and to speak in the language of some,
if the time of carrot passed, lets see who whipes who?
the donkey the rider? or the rider the donkey?

I am sorry, but as we say so well in english: "Why not ?"

Originally Posted by edao

"...starting with the fall in stock prices...it quickly spread to almost every country in the world. ...devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%. Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most....primarily a failure on the part of free markets or a failure of government efforts to regulate interest rates, curtail widespread bank failures, and control the money supply."

Sound familiar, its not about the current economic crisis but a wiki page describing the Depression of the 1930s.

(...) (end of the first part, here this is me, ACourvoisier: I cannot quote links)
(second part:)

So how did the the West escape from a decade of Depression?
"The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression.."

How about we incease government spending? Scare people so much about the threat of the boogie man they will want us to spend their tax money bombing some Arab country to pieces.

Looks like the plan is already in motion....

(Here this is me, ACourvoisier: second link wich I couldn't quote)

Hi Edao,
Indeed, I thought already a few years ago, that we needed a third world war.
But I wasn't really thinking at economics.*
See around our society; how so many behaviors of people of our society are decadents... no regards, the people live for themselves, they will soon love no one, and in particular, they are often desperate for being in front of a computer and sometimes post on a forum instead to speak with their promise - and in this last case, I am not doing better. Generally, their are happy when they have the last mobile phone of the moment...

*Or at the politics: States will soon don't dare anymore to defend their interests. This is particularly the case of the States of a centralized Europe, and in particular, this is the case of Switzerland, with the bilateral conventions (with Europe), which throw in our land flows of immigrants. Immigrants are needed, simply for doing some works for which we can't find enough swiss people to do this. But there is a limit for all, and when I am walking in the center of Lausanne, I don't recognize a swiss person anymore, and this make me sometime a lot of worry for the future of my land, as for my own future.

So, for all these reasons, yes, sometimes I think we would need a third world war, after which, people would get back some values for themselves as for the other ones.

The estimates on WWII deaths -civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war. In other words 2.5% of the world's population died and that does not mention the untold destruction, suffering, poverty, disease and famine for those who actually survived.

The effect of which is still felt to this day and you are suggesting another world war, which would be far worse than the last, simply because people are not living the way you would like them to? But, of course, Switzerland was a haven of peace and it's banks raked in millions while the world destroyed itself last time, it might not be so lucky if there is another.

The effect of which is still felt to this day and you are suggesting another world war, which would be far worse than the last, simply because people are not living the way you would like them to? But, of course, Switzerland was a haven of peace and it's banks raked in millions while the world destroyed itself last time, it might not be so lucky if there is another.

Ok, I know that all forms of violence are bad, and this is even more the case of the war, this is evident.
I remember at the passage that it is not me who "suggest" a world war, but Edao who "posed the question", occasion of which I was just making "a thought".
Particularly, I have two bad reasons to "suggest" a world war: I live in a neutral Land; and if I made almost all my army day, I have not finished this military service for some reasons, so in fact am I not in the Army anymore, and by consequence: I could not "suggest" a world war (what is even not the case of our Army, as you know).
About "our banks who raked millions" in the last war: this is probably true: you forget, than protect the gold of belligerents, was a practical reason, for not being attacked by the "enemy". And you omit, that this Haven of Peace - which risked the war however - was simply, by this way, a place to welcome people who were really suffering a war in their Land.
But I do not want to make a polemic, I told enough about my own Land.

For conclusion:
This was not a question of "liking" the way lot of people live (however, I often don't like it), but more precisely, the problem is that there is a general way of living - you know: things like the divorces, and among the young people: seeing ones own little interest;
all that make something that can simply not continue very long, for the simple reason that it is not "living" healthly, and by this way, that will be blown away by a manner or another, but I don't know the time do the people need to realise. And so, if the people don't understand this in twenty years, or worse: are getting worse, I had not other idea than a war - I think sociology is too complicated for me - or have you a better solution to make people live healthy, loving their Land and the other people ?

ACourvoisier, at what age, when exactly, in Europe do you think people had the best morals, conducts, traditions: middle ages, Renascence, 19th century, etc?
Do you think that last two world wars were the result, consequences of rotten way of live in Europe?

Well, you pose very good questions, and for this, I'd like to answer precisely, if my historical culture let me so.
First, for the end of your previous message above, I want signal to you that - maybe - the wars effectively were no a result of way of living in Europe (or maybe yes ?), or if no: a result of what ?
But even if no, this doesn't signify that this way of "living" won't do so in a future.

For the interesting questions of the past, effectively, they become frequently of actuality, so I'd like to respond (I must remember History which I have not necessarily lived):
Middle-Age: surely no, because of the scientific regression (however I admire the case of Alchem(istr)y);
Renaissance: much more, for the same reason, but in the opposite sense (scientific and human progression),
about the 19th century, this is the period which I prefer with the coming of quantic physics and all these wonderful theoreticians of the physics ; but one more time, the ancient Germany was already preparing war in these times,
so this re-lead us to - among some of your propositions (I don't remember every of all the periods) - at the Renaissance,
when there was an "incredible" coming of hope, not only for science, but for the Humanity, and when people were generally cultivating the earth (however: even more harder on these times than now), but:

"Times are bad, children no longer obey their parents and everyone is writing a book".
Marcus Tullius Cicero 106-43 BC

In answer to your question Lebrok, I'd say never!

-Oh, there is no relation with this message, but - from Europe-Economy - to where is redirected this topic ?

-Without willing be so formalist, it would be fine - you are already two to answering to me - if, for such a conditional and uncertain answer (<<I would say never>>), if you let LeBrok answer; or answer with a beginning of proposition for the problems of society which I asked to you 2 messages above.

Or if the discussion doesn't passion anymore, it would be more "serious" (sic forum) to stop here.

All you've said in three posts ACourvoisier is that you don't like the way society is headed and that you'd prefer everyone lived to your idea of moral standards. In other words, you don't like change and your solution is to have a world war and kill off a lot of people so we all can go back to some medieval utopia where everyone supposedly lived to your ideal.

My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

If you read up on the after effects of WWI and WWII on Europe (and the world) you will find that war does not take society back to past ideals. It, in fact, accelerates the very change that you so dislike. Both WWI and II catapulted the world into what we have now, the modern era and WWIII will only turn the clock further forward. Never back, there is no going back.

All you've said in three posts ACourvoisier is that you don't like the way society is headed and that you'd prefer everyone lived to your idea of moral standards. In other words, you don't like change and your solution is to have a world war and kill off a lot of people so we all can go back to some medieval utopia where everyone supposedly lived to your ideal.

This is not because I asked you "a better solution", that I thought that war was a solution, in the idealistic sense of the term.
I just prevent, that - for a known question of history and synchronic cycles to the modes of living, it could arrive.

Originally Posted by Antigone

My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

So with a pseudonym as "Antigone", you should know philosophy; but this one doesn't consist in quote philosophers; you must know the question of the dialectic, you know: Thesis - anti-thesis - Synthesis.
In other words: was Cicero writing this:
1)honestly (in the moral sense of the term), to let us directly read it;
2)ironicaly, to make us take it in the opposite sense;
3)as a posed problem/"question", to let the descendants think and conclude?

You have not done this work, of putting your quotation with "your" explanation.

Originally Posted by Antigone

If you read up on the after effects of WWI and WWII on Europe (and the world) you will find that war does not take society back to past ideals. It, in fact, accelerates the very change that you so dislike. Both WWI and II catapulted the world into what we have now, the modern era and WWIII will only turn the clock further forward. Never back, there is no going back.

My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

This above, plus the fact that Europe is without major war for long 66 years, and considering highest economic standard of living ever, I would conclude that today we might have the best morals and ethics of all the ages. Even if some will argue that they don't like these current morals, or that today's morals are not perfect, I would counterargument that these morals must be the best we had, because of the mentioned splendid results of peace and prosperity.The point is that peaceful and plentiful times, of last half century, can’t be the product of worsened morals and ethics.

This above, plus the fact that Europe is without major war for long 66 years, .

Under statistical considerations, this is not an argument.

Originally Posted by LeBrok

and considering highest economic standard of living ever, I would conclude that today we might have the best morals and ethics of all the ages. Even if some will argue that they don't like these current morals, or that today's morals are not perfect, I would counterargument that these morals must be the best we had, because of the mentioned splendid results of peace and prosperity.The point is that peaceful and plentiful times, of last half century, can’t be the product of worsened morals and ethics.

This is possible; but you are ideed omitting the cold war, that low the "paceful times" to twenty years.

(...)
My response to Lebrok was relevant and on topic, you just did not understand it. It was to point out that what you are saying is nothing new. People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.
(...)

Oh, and one other thing; this time; to Antigone:
If I understand you;
when you wrote: <<I would say never>>, this was only about "the best morals"; but about "the bad times", for the same argument you are exposing above, this is exactly "ever".

So when I say that we are in bad times, you don't say the opposite.

Last edited by ACourvoisier; 02-11-11 at 09:22.
Reason: false arguments.

Unlimited evolution ?

Originally Posted by Antigone

If you read up on the after effects of WWI and WWII on Europe (and the world) you will find that war does not take society back to past ideals. It, in fact, accelerates the very change that you so dislike. Both WWI and II catapulted the world into what we have now, the modern era and WWIII will only turn the clock further forward. Never back, there is no going back.

Excuse me for this thirst post in a short moment, but Iwould at least answer Antigone about the third part of the quotation I made ofhim, above.

I respect your opinion, consisting to mean that times are not so bad in appearance.

Especially, I learn that to have strong values or principle is « a return in the past », which – obviously – can’t be done. Maybe.

Do you think, that the « accelerations of the changes » or « the changes » are necessarily an evolution (in its positive sense) ?

So, when a species disappear – as dinosaurs – what iscoming, next ?

I don’t think in such a case, that there is a coming back, nor « acceleration » - here by the dinosaurs – as they disappear. So what could be come from the Humanity, in next decades (opened question) ?

As she change so rapidly, what I approve, could she evolute undefinitively ?

i beg your pardon.

Antigone,
I beg your pardon for two reasons:
I wrote: "the third part of quotation I made of him", but while you was logged and I was seeing your profile, I just remembered that Antigone was a woman; so excuse me for this error.
The second reason, is that I made a "copy-paste" from a text editor for pc, and this made some concatenations of words, so there are some falses of orthograph; this is the second reason to demand you to excuse me.

Particularly, your argument telling that "there is no going back", made me just have a real and brief reflexion, really for the first time I am on this forum.
And I was so surprised to destroy so easily the arguments of a philopher (althought I have already done such a thing), but indeed mistaked myself by taking you for a professional philopher; I ought to see that Antigone was really a character of theater, but this doesn't matter I think.
If you have an answer to my questions when you will to post it, I would appreciate this.

You wrote so many, that you made other "omittings".

Originally Posted by Antigone

People have been complaining about the same thing since written records began and history is littered with the complaints of people concerned with the degradation of society's morals, through all historical eras.

Could you tell me, what is an "historical era" ?

Is this not something, which have precisely a begining and a end ?

So in such a end, are there not even undesired "going back". I think to know that there were some regression in a part of Middle-Age, after what there was a new re-begining ?